Laurence E. (Larry) Blow President, MaglevTransport, Inc. www.maglevtransport.com

High Speed Rail World 2010 Conference Washington, D.C. April 19-22, 2010 1. Too expensive 2. Just another train 3. Replaces automobiles 4. Still experimental 5. Not safe or reliable 6. Can’t carry freight 7. Can’t do anything a train can’t do 8. Incompatible with rail 9. Magnetic fields are harmful

10. It’s noisy and “belches” CO2  UK Ultraspeed analysis suggests otherwise

• and rail data from UK Ultraspeed website: www.500kmh.com  UK capital cost analysis suggests otherwise

 Operating costs tell a similar story  Infrastructure cost comparisons are illuminating  Maintenance cost comparisons favor maglev  Dictionary usage of “train” can be misleading  It’s not “a line of railway cars coupled together and drawn by a locomotive,” but it’s close to “a procession (of wagons, mules, camels or vehicles) traveling together in single file.”  Maglev’s more like an airplane without wings  Lightweight / aerospace materials, pressurized car bodies  Sleek, futuristic body shapes without overhead wires, etc.  It’ll never happen -- we love our cars too much  Studies since 1989-1991 show this effect  TRB’s “In Pursuit of Speed” did good work  Maglev must always be faster than autos  Real competition is the short-haul air market  Not a myth for many years, since maglev testing started in the 1970s, but:  2001: Contracts signed for construction in China  2003: Shanghai airport connector opens  2009: 210,000 one-way trips taken since 2004  Not a myth for many years, and now:  2007: announces plans to commercialize its high- speed superconducting maglev, the “Chuo ”  2009: Japan government concurs that the technology is ready for revenue service starting in 2025  Will connect and at first (290 km/180 mi)  area extension to follow (260 km/160 mi)  Full-scale test tracks have been operating since the early 1980s  560,000 passengers over more than 1.8 M km / 1.1 M miles  Shanghai riders: 23 Million+ (2004 - 2009), travelling more than 3.9 million miles  Commercial on-time reliability: 98.98%  No injury accidents in normal operations*  Air shipping:

 Per section: 19 U.S. tons capacity  Up to 20 section consists: 380 tons ea.  Running speeds: > 400 km/h (250 mph)

 Seaborne shipping:

 Single- or double-stack  Up to 20 sections: 20 – 40 units  400 – 800 containers / hour  Running speeds: > 160km/h (100 mph)  TGV record speed: 574 km/h (357 mph)  Total track: 150 km (93 mi)

 SCMaglev record speed: 581 km/h (361 mph)  Total track: 18.4 km (11.4 mi)

record speed: 501 km/h (311 mph)  Transrapid daily speed: 430 km/h (267 mph)  Total track: 30 km (19 mi)

Maglev performance is out of HSR’s reach  Maglev performance is out of HSR’s reach  Speed, acceleration, braking, banking, climbing: 3X  More true than not, considering different track shapes, materials and loads…and that’s good  Connections are made in stations, along with other modes (commuter rail, bus, taxi, subway, private cars or airplanes)  Maglev runs only in sealed corridors  Such a claim just makes no sense.

Source: German Federal Institute for Industrial Medicine  Field test data taken by experts says otherwise

Notes: (1) +3dB difference = 2X perceived sound level (2) Source: “Noise Characteristics of the Transrapid TR08 Maglev System” DOT-VNTSC-FRA- 02-13, July 2002  UK Ultraspeed looked at CO2 implications vs. trip times for Glasgow – Edinburgh route  3 stations, 66.4 km/41.5 mi distance

 There’s no “belching” of CO2 going on…  Many things you hear about maglev vs. high-speed rail simply aren’t true, especially regarding:  Costs  Maturity  Environmental effects

 Rail is approaching its practical limits

 Maglev is poised to enter the U.S. market

 Maglev is a viable high-speed travel alternative